« She Walks Very Well | Main | You Can't Have This: You're CR Girl! »
September 23, 2007
Actually, Not Every Woman Has An Eating Disorder
[Welcome to any new readers... and before you accuse me of being a size bigot because I will not assent to the thesis that all women have eating disorders, please read my entry Against Weight Bias.]
There is a most interesting blog called Every Woman Has An Eating Disorder that I enjoy reading from time to time. I agree with some of what the author says, and I disagree with other things. But I've found that over time, I get more and more annoyed about the title of the blog.
Now to be fair, I have to give the author tremendous credit for coming up with a catchy, controversial title that sticks in one's head. She's working on a book, and I suspect it is a book that will sell. Clearly, many women find food and body image to be an uncomfortable issue in their lives. No one sane would deny that. She's clearly hit a nerve with the title, and much of the content is insightful and interesting, whether you agree or not.
My thesis is pretty simple:
In the food environment in which we live, it is very difficult, and at times pretty near impossible, to be a woman with anything near normal genetics (hello, not Julia Roberts!) and maintain a healthy weight and body composition without going to a great deal of effort. When a normal breakfast meeting for work means catered trays of donuts, danishes, and bagels with cream cheese... when lunch out with colleagues means ordering off a menu filled with cream soups and pasta dishes... when a nice Friday night date means a steak, appetizer, dessert, and half a bottle of wine, or else you're "eating like a rabbit," or "You must be anorexic," it's hard for any normal women to eat "normally" without getting fat.
Add to that the fact that we work more hours than ever, often more then men in the very same job, while most of us have greater responsibilities for childcare, care of elderly or ill parents, and upkeep our our home than our male counterparts, so we don't have a ton of time or energy to devote to working out. Our jobs are mostly sedentary, and we're lucky if we get enough time to sleep, much less enough time to go to the gym. It's really, really hard to fight all these forces and maintain a healthy weight.
And let's face it: when we get fat, most of us feel like crap. I know I did. Having less energy, not liking the way you look in the mirror, being more susceptible to illnesses and knowing your risk of disease in later life is rising: that's just not fun. You don't have to be obsessed with thinness to know that being thin and fit feels better. Your definition of fit may vary: I know runners who don't feel fit unless they're running six miles a day, but there's no way I'd run that far unless a wild boar was chasing me. Our definitions of our own personal best can and do vary based on our own lifestyle choices and preferences, but I seriously doubt that there are many people out there who are truly happy with being obese. A few, to be sure. My point is that being happier in a body that is thin and healthy than one was in a body that was overweight and out of shape if not evidence of an eating disorder.
When women lack the tools, education, and resources to maintain a healthy weight through healthy means like eating well and exercising, it's easy for a negative feedback loop to start. The self-hatred, the blaming, the angry, guilty feelings that seem to lead to yet another binge. Some of us have been there, and it's not fun. That's where I think the idea that every woman has an eating disorder comes from: the observation that most women, when faced with the host of bad choices that our society presents us with, react by feeling pretty darned bad about our bodies and our food choices.
I find, however, that describing this situation as an epidemic of eating disorders pathologizes the individuals, while absolving society of the larger problem. The very same women who grow to obese weights when eating the standard American diet can easily maintain a healthy weight (not necessarily "skinny" but most of us grown up women don't want to be Kate Moss, we just want to look decent in our clothes and feel good when we get up in the morning) by eating lean proteins, lots of fruits and vegetables, and avoiding the processed junk that pervades the aisles of every regular grocery store and the menus of most every restaurant. To be sure, there are individuals with medical conditions that make it hard for them to maintain a healthy weight, but these folks are in the very small minority. Most of us can be healthy, and would be, I believe, were we to live in an environment that made it easier to choose healthy foods, where full information and education were available to all, and where physical activity was a part of every day life. Every woman does not have an eating disorder... but most women live in an obesogenic environment in which we will, if we do not take steps to the contrary, become overweight or obese.
That's why I like to focus on the steps we can take to the contrary, and especially those steps that are relatively painless, like learning what's in our food and making choices to get the most satisfaction from our food with smaller numbers of calories. Getting great nutrition is, for many people who've tried it, the key to feeling satisfied (in fact, feeling better than ever!) while eating (and weighing) much less than we ever did in our ad lib days. Even if I weren't interested in slowing my biological aging process, I'd still be glad to use the tools from the CR toolbox that have helped me get and stay thin with relatively little effort and no real sacrifice of pleasure in life. Anyone who's eaten a meal with me can tell you that I enjoy my food with a lust that rivals a teenage boy looking at Playboy... I just know how to balance my total calories now so that I stay at the level where I'm comfortable... about 20 pounds lighter than I ever was in my adult life before CR. As Elton John would say (and now you'll have the song in your head all day!) "It's no sacrifice at all."
Of course, it took a lot of research to figure out the tricks and tools and techniques that I now use to maintain my moderate CR lifestyle. Before CR, I was unhappy with my body and dissatisfied with my food choices, but I didn't have an eating disorder: I had an information disorder! I didn't know what to eat because I didn't know enough about nutrition or about total calorie counts. Once I had the information, I could make better choices. It's still very hard to navigate around a food environment where high calorie, sugar laden, saturated fat loaded foods attack one on every corner and hotel desk, but it's possible.
More than anything, I think that my problem with the statement: "Every woman has an eating disorder," is that it pathologizes the very idea of being a woman. It sets up an expectation that a woman can not have a healthy relationship with food, so whatever relationship with food a woman may have, it must be unhealthy.
This is really freakin irksome to those of us who have fought hard to create a relationship with food and our body image that we can be at peace with. I know a lot of women who fall into this category, and we're downright annoyed at anyone who assumes that we must have an eating disorder simply because we are female. Whether we come at our relationship with food from the perspective of wanting to slow our aging process, or perhaps we are athletes who maintain a body at the peak of performance for our sport, or just a normal girl who has learned how to eat to feel her best, we know that it is possible to be in harmony with our bodies. Of course, some people will call us vain if we express that we are happy with our looks, but really, life is too short, no matter how radically extended, to entertain such criticism. In a world where most women hate their bodies, somebody's got to be a counterweight!
Being a woman does not equal having an eating disorder, and claiming that every woman has an eating disorder puts the blame on being a woman. I doubt that is the blog author's intent, but that's how the statement reads to me. It pathologizes the very idea of being a woman. How can we be healthy if we're born with an eating disorder? What's the point of trying to make good choices if we're doomed no matter what we do? Why not chuck it all and reach for a large order of fries? We can't help it... we're female! So we have no choice but to eat too much, exercise too little, and get old and sick much sooner than we really need to.
Uh, no thanks. I choose to exercise a little more power over my own food choices, and a little more power over my own life. I recognize that it's really, really hard, and I'm extremely supportive of efforts on the part of folks like Kelly Brownell to make our food environment more friendly to healthy choices. But I absolutely refuse to categorize all women as disordered, damaged people. It's not fair to those of us who don't have eating disorders. If we are to find a way that most women can live in harmony with our bodies, we must start with information, education, and a greater emphasis on making the food environment healthier, not with a thesis that every woman has an eating disorder. I don't have an eating disorder. A lot of my female friends don't have eating disorders. Yes, we are thin, and we are also healthy (with the blood work to prove it) and happy. Are we not women?
Posted by april at September 23, 2007 1:49 PM
Comments
Heylas again! You guys are my cr-idols and role-models, and was just curious why you guys are okay with sugar subs like maltodextrin(which actully apparently has a GI higher then glucose) in sugar-free jello, but gluclose seems to be out the window in terms of eating that
Thanks for your time!
Posted by: Charles at September 22, 2007 7:48 PM
Before the Beth Dittoes of the world launch their "I'm happy with my thighs destroying my hose everytime I go out!" mantras, I just wanted to throw in a "hell yeah" and a "fistpump!" to this entry.
I'm gonna go steam me some kale.
Posted by: allswellinhell at September 23, 2007 10:34 AM
[I went to post this on the "eveywoman has an eating disorder" blog, but it was too long, so I couldn't. Only skinny replies allowed there! lol]
Hyperadjectivism aside, "every woman" has an appestat which, when immersed in an environment bombarded with abesiogenic, capitalistic sales media, will be prone to be pushed way past any normal range and end up in a overload/danger zone. The only way to combat this excessive media blitzkrieg-bombardment is a hyper-alertness regarding caloric intake, which you and others may deem an obsession. "Everywoman" knows that if she fails in this hyperalertness, then her appestat will be artificially ratcheted into the danger zone by the mind-numbing bombardment of the obesiogenic media onslaught. In this sick, demented, capitalistic-based media environment, it is EITHER a constant "obsession" with calories and diet, OR it is a quick slide into obesity, fat-ugliness and disastrous health for "every woman" (more honestly described as "most women," or "many women").
Posted by: CRWilliam at September 23, 2007 10:50 AM
Yes! And why is it that men, who are fatter than women on average, don't have EDs? When did the equation become skinny = ED? (Okay, I have an ED, but not everyone does.) Why is it that society, culture, or whatever seems to want women to suffer in one way or another?
Great post!
Emi
Posted by: Emi at September 23, 2007 5:57 PM
I would agree with you on one point: that there exists a distinct paradox where a woman's weight is concerned. Either a woman is fat, or she is weight-obsessed and "anorexic." On the other hand, I think there is one fatal flaw with the rest of your argumentation here. You claim that NOT ALL women have eating disorders (either ones that involve eating too much/emotionally, or ones that eat too little/obsessively). In claiming that not all women have issues with food in this way you seem to be offering yourself as an example... because what other profound example could you have? But you CAN'T offer yourself as a proper example of a woman free of disordered eating. I would say all this CR business is just as obsessive as anorexia. Perhaps the goals and the driving force behind it are healthier (and I use that word very loosely) but it is still obsessive to the core. It seems quite disordered (and a great waste of time and energy) to be "in a state of panic" (for example) because a coworker suggests you go out to lunch with him. That is just as disruptive as any other sort of disordered eating. Food and thoughts of food should not dominate a person's life so entirely. So while at the end of the day I agree with the general principle that not all women have disordered eating, and with the thought that women in America are forced to suffer through the weight paradox, I do not believe that you personally can offer yourself as a paradigm of the "healthy, eating disorder-free" woman. A woman can only be free of eating disorders if she eats to live (to use a horrible cliche) as opposed to living to eat. And while I know the "science" behind CR promotes itself as a system designed for "eating to live," in reality, it is just the opposite because it forces a person to obsess about food -- which in my opinion is definitive of "living to eat."
I am not trying to criticize, here, by the way. I'm just a little frightened by CR. It makes me feel that the world will never be free of this weight obsession that it seems to have acquired in the last several decades.
Posted by: Jackie at September 25, 2007 11:18 AM
Oh for heaven's sake Jackie, how many times have I addressed that?
I may be obsessed with union organizing, but I am definitely not obsessed with food. Unlike those with eating disorders, be they anorexics or compulsive overeaters, those of us who practice CR actually love food, love our bodies, and love our lives. Anyone who actually knows one of us, and actually knows an anorexic, can tell you there's a big, big difference.
In fact, I think we're a lot happier with our relationship with food than your average American. We just don't eat mindlessly: we eat for actual reasons, not just because food is shoved in our face at every turn. We eat for nutrition, we eat for energy, we eat because we enjoy the experience of good food shared in the company of those we love, but we don't just eat because it's there. And most of us manage to avoid eating just because of social pressure. Who are other people to tell me when and where and what I should eat? That's all social pressure to eat or not eat is... why would I allow that to make my decisions anymore than I would allow social pressure to convince me to take dangerous drugs or do anything else harmful? Maybe I am scarred by the eighties, but I am a firm believer in "Just say no thank you," if someone is pushing you to do something you don't want to do.
I am so tired of this line of argumentation, which is not really your fault as you probably haven't read the zillions of entries I (and others) have already written about it.
To pay attention to something, to research it and decide what is the course of action that one wants to take, and then to take that action, to reach one's goals, even when it takes self-discipline and self-control isn't a disorder. It's behaving rationally.
But in our society, any symptom of self-control gets hit with "disorder! obsession!"
I think if you read the blog a bit longer, you'll find that CR is not disruptive to my life at all... at least no more than traffic lights are to driving. I have so much more energy, feel so much better, never get sick, and I don't waste any time hating my body, cause I love the way I look and feel!
You know what was disruptive to my life? How I lived before CR. Getting a cold twice a year, having to buy new clothes because I kept gaining weight, having to wait for the elevator because I was too unfit to climb the stairs to my forth floor office. Wow, I've saved the time I spend chopping vegetables already!
But you know what's really disruptive to life?
Aging, disease, and death. Aging really slows you down. Disease sure can ruin a good time. And death speaks for itself.
It seems to me that having a "I'll make choices to improve how I feel today and my long term health," is actually the non-disordered attitude here. Perhaps your priorities aren't in line with mine... no problem! It's quite unusual to be interested in CR, and if you are scared of it, I suggest you stay as far away as possible. Perhaps something in you can't handle the idea of anyone exercising conscious control over his or her food intake. A lot of former anorexics feel that's too close to their bad experience to be able to be in contact with it, and I totally respect that. It's wise for people to set their own boundaries. I don't watch scary or violent movies or tv shows because I don't want to put those images into my brain. My choice: others love Law and Order.
But I do wish folks could stop projecting their own issues onto us. It wasn't such a problem when there were only male CR practitioners, but now that women do it, people assume we're all anorexics. If only any of you actually met us... you'd see how vibrantly healthy and happy we are. To the point where the girls among us often get called vain because we love our bodies that much. Of course, it's annoying to be mistaken for being in my early twenties when I'm 33 and trying to be taken seriously at a national meeting for work, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. That didn't happen pre-CR, for sure.
Loving our bodies enough to take care of them, in a real way. Radical, I know.
I apologize if I sound harsh. It's just that I've been through this territory so many times that I have lost patience. Please don't feel unwelcome, and browse some of the earlier entries if you want a better understanding of what's going on. Especially the "Women's Magazines" article from the old site, which if you google aprilcr blogspot "women's magazines" will probably come up but I'm on such a slow connection right now that I can't seem to find it.
a
Posted by: april at September 25, 2007 12:57 PM
I think of it like this: plenty of people keep track of what they spend (often with computer programs) and try to maximize their money by not buying products that are a waste of money, and buying products that are good values.
Do we consider this to be disordered? No.
So why is the same behavior, when applied to calories (using nutrition tracking software, not eating crap, and choosing high nutrient, love calorie foods), considered disordered behavior?
Posted by: Erin at September 25, 2007 1:22 PM
I didn't mean to upset you, I was just making an observation regarding what I view as faulty logic. I have read only one or two items on this blog and decided to post my opinion on those few. I will of course cease and desist if I've offended you in some way. But I would imagine that someone who begins a blog such as this might be open to opposing lines of thought. Really, I'm just trying to understand the mindset, I suppose.
You say that you are happier with your lives and with your eating than the average American is... but that isn't saying much. It's merely an attack aimed at a group so general that I don't think you can make it with any modicum of certainty and would be foolish to try to do so. Also, I'm sorry but you still haven't made any headway on denying the obsessive aspect of CR. If you need to weigh your food and enter every single thing you put in your mouth into a computer program... that is obsessive. (Or at the very least it necessitates much more time and effort than I am willing to put into food. Which isn't a proper arguement in and of itself, I know.) You claim that you are happier because you don't eat mindlessly. But it seems you do just the opposite: you eat TOO mindfully. You've reacted to one problem by turning to the extreme opposite... Personally I greatly enjoy the things I eat. I eat healthily and when I want to eat. I know what is healthy and what isn't and I eat when I'm hungry and stop when I'm full. I am also at a very healthy weight, rarely get sick, and am very happy with my body. Period. There is no calculating or worrying (by worrying I mean in the literal sense of the word...).
I think you've been ruffled by what you read as my equating anorexia with CR. I can understand why that would upset you. I don't believe they are the same. As I noted above, the thought processes and justifications are opposing. Furthermore, I'm sure you are a great deal healthier than an anorexic. But, to me, they both seem to be eating disorders. That's the only way I would equate the two. I would tend to label CR as "disorder" because it seems to me, and clearly I could be wrong, that CR-followers can't stop what they are doing. It seems that once a person really turns to a CR lifestyle it becomes a drug of necessity. Now an overeater functions in the same way. Binging... they can't stop doing it. Anorexics are the same: they seem to crave the control etc. They can't stop. Isn't that the definition of disorder? You claim that you get "wiggy" if you break your calorie count for the day. It is a very unforgiving way of life, I think. If you were to discover that CR wasn't as beneficial to your health as you had at one time believed it to be -- would you be able to stop? Would your life suddenly be alot less meaningful? Would you regret the way you've lived? I'm only asking these questions out of curiousity, not as a means of leveling an attack at you.
In closing, my problem with the CR belief structure as I see it, I believe, is that at the end of the day, the goal (in the extreme and purely theoretical form) seems to be to basically achieve immortality. That is not an endgame I can get behind. I suppose you could call CR a new-age religion in that sense. It seems to be the result of an excessive fear of death. But perhaps you can change my mind, if you are so inclined to respond.
Posted by: Jackie at September 25, 2007 2:31 PM
Jackie,
Again, your comment shows that you haven't had time to look into the matter fully.
Lots of people go on and off CR... I've done so! But I find that I *feel* better, day to day, if I am doing proper CR. That's just how I feel... physically and mentally. Others may differ.
See Erin's comments above re: bank accounting. I wish I were as careful with my credit card as I am with what I put into my body! But then again, health is more valuable than money, isn't it? I do pretty well... I spend healthily, as you would no doubt say, and I'm not in any debt. But I'd like to be more mindful there too, and to save more and have more put away for retirement. Planning ahead is good!
Frankly, who are you to say that I eat *too* mindfully. Too mindfully for whom? For you, or for me? No one is trying to get you to do CR. I have tried both ways, and many varaitions, several times. I know what works for me. I suppose I could say I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I'm not. It's not my problem if it bothers you: it's yours.
I think that "obsessive" is a meaningless term. Do I display any of the classic behaviors of an obsessive compulsive in my relationship to food? No, I don't. Do I find that my eating habits get in the way of doing other things I want to do? No... actually, they facilite doing other things I want to do. Like feeling well and having energy and looking great in anything I put on.
If you had gathered a bit more information, you would be aware that no one thinks that CR will be a gate to immortality. At best it may slow the aging process a bit. At worst, it decreases our risk of disease and improves our health and quality of life in the here and now.
For me, I spend a lot less energy practicing CR than I spent worrying about my weight before I started CR. It takes a lot less time to just feel good in one's skin. I feel good in my body, and I go about the rest of my life. My job is so demanding that trust me, I don't have a lot of time on my hands.
You write:
"Furthermore, I'm sure you are a great deal healthier than an anorexic. But, to me, they both seem to be eating disorders. That's the only way I would equate the two. I would tend to label CR as "disorder" because it seems to me, and clearly I could be wrong, that CR-followers can't stop what they are doing. It seems that once a person really turns to a CR lifestyle it becomes a drug of necessity. Now an overeater functions in the same way. Binging... they can't stop doing it. Anorexics are the same: they seem to crave the control etc. They can't stop. Isn't that the definition of disorder? You claim that you get "wiggy" if you break your calorie count for the day. It is a very unforgiving way of life, I think. If you were to discover that CR wasn't as beneficial to your health as you had at one time believed it to be -- would you be able to stop? Would your life suddenly be alot less meaningful? Would you regret the way you've lived? I'm only asking these questions out of curiousity, not as a means of leveling an attack at you."
As I said, it's clear that you haven't done much investigation into the topic which is fine... you're still welcome to write in! But you're wrong: many CR folks go off and on or to different levels based on evolving scientific evidence and their own personal priorities. If I were to find that CR would not extend life in humans, I would probably stay where I am now (very moderate CR) but not attempt to go any further. I feel better when I'm eating better: it's just a fact for me. When my body is in a state of optimal health, not dive-bombed with excess calories, I feel fantastic. So why would I want to give that up? But I probably wouldn't go any lower in my calories, I'd stay as is rather than trying to go lower.
I want to feel, when I'm forty, as good as I do now. I want to be able to function, when I'm sixty, as well as I do now. I want to be alive and well when I'm 80 and 90 and 100. At the moment, calorie restriction is the only intervention that has slowed biological aging in mammals. I hope that eventually other, biomedical advances will become available. Hence my support for SENS research, the Mprize, and my partner, whose dinner I cook so he can write about said research.
If I found out now that CR wouldn't increase lifespan, I wouldn't regret for a minute the way I've lived. Because for me (and this is what you don't seem to be able to understand) it's no sacrifice. I eat well, I pay attention, sometimes I go out or eat a dessert and I enjoy it without guilt because I'm no longer living in the pathetic negative feedback loop that most women are stuck in where food = moral judgement. Food is just food. It's great, when it's great, and it can do great things, like nourish my body and provide me with sensual pleasures. But as you said, I eat to live, I don't live to eat. Food is a great part of life, but only one of many parts. And I'm not willing to sacrifice my health for more cheeseburgers.
a
Posted by: april at September 25, 2007 4:03 PM
Hi, all, and Hi, April, who supposedly awaits me in Philly w/an amazing cup of coffee. . . ; )
I don't think that all women have e.d.'s, but I think most women (and arguably men are catching up here) have unhealthy relationships w/food and their bodies. Not all, but most. The title is meant to be provocative--might not be the ultimate title, but it's the working one for now. I'm open to suggestions from you all.
I, too, am struggling with how to write this book w/out presenting women as diseased. We're not the problem, I agree. Our issues w/food and our bodies are symptomatic of a larger cultural demand that women be thin at all costs. I'm working on a chapter called "Why Women?" and attempting to elucidate this point--that I don't mean to suggest that women are at fault (as a feminist, I realize I'm walking a fine line), but that we are victims of the cultural mandate above. Just my .02.
Posted by: drstaceyny at September 26, 2007 8:41 AM
April and Jackie, the exchange between the two of you shows, in my opinion, that CR and non-CR people have real difficulty in communicating. I think the camps talk past each other continually.
Dr. Stacey, I'm not entirely sure that April agrees that the culture demands women be thin at all costs. If you read April's blog, she sometimes feels discriminated against as a calorie-controlled person, and believes that our culture glorifies undisciplined eating and "loving yourself anyway."
April, pursuant to that point, I feel that you have difficulty distinguishing between the instinctive eating promoted by Dr. Stacey, and the gonzo "fourthmeal," "unhunger," "eat-this-one-pound-P'Zone" attitude promoted by TV commercials. Generally, people who preach size acceptance do *not* advocate random feeding, which amounts to bingeing, from which they are trying to help people recover. Instead, they try to teach people to reconnect with, discern, and follow the *precise* cues of their body: I feel hunger now, so I eat; the hunger is receding, so I stop. If followed correctly, this program is actually very rigorous--but in a totally different way from CR.
And I think that's where the communication problems come in. I do *not* believe CR is disordered--I want to be very clear about that--but it *does* involve *ignoring the body's signals* to a certain degree because CR practitioners consciously eat less than they otherwise would. They set their intake targets based not on their hunger, but on their CR goals, and then adjust their volume, protein and fiber within their calorie allotment in order to tamp down their hunger. *This* is what sets off alarm bells among people like Jackie and Dr. Stacey who advocate listening to the body--which in turn, April, sets off alarm bells in *you*, because to you, "listening to the body" sounds like "let's eat a whole stuffed-crust deep-dish pizza."
Each side, imho, has difficulty understanding the other.
Posted by: Yvonne at September 26, 2007 9:36 AM